Talk:Transsexual/Archive 9

Let's spin off 'In the media'
I find the In the media section to be wildly undue in length, compared to other sections. Roughly eyeballing it, it may be longer in column inches than any other section, with the possible exception of Prevalence. It should be spun off into its own article, and be replaced by a brief Summary style section, with a Main article link to Transsexualism in the media.

I see the Transsexual article as a serious article on a serious topic, and the "In the media" section is getting taken over by triva and pop culture that is way out of proportion to its importance to a study about transsexuality as a whole. I do agree that the article merits a decent "In the media" section. In that section, I would like to learn a bit about the history of when and how transsexual people and actors portraying them were first visible in the media, how that may have evolved from sensationalism, or mockery, or broad stereotypes, or discrimination, or tokenism, or whatever was the case, what were the really major milestones, and what were the broad trends as things evolved through the decades. It's not necessary in this article to have tons of detail about it. I really do not want to know every film that has a transgender character. I do not want to see a paragraph about how Judy has a crush on Frances in some film, while the entire article says not a single word about Lou Sullivan.

The whole section should be moved en masse to Transsexualism in the media, and a new, serious summary treatment should be created here, very likely starting with Christine Jorgensen (not hermaphroditism, off-topic here), and continuing on perhaps to Renee Richards, or possibly Jan Morris for early cases in the media, and naming a one or two other important cases like Boys Don't Cry as representative for the rest, and giving a sense of the ramp-up in public awareness due to increasing presence and exposure in the decades from the 1990s onward. The spin-off article can have all of that, and more, in as much detail as is desired. Mathglot (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Separate from the question of where the section goes but related to the matter of its length, it also needs to be checked to ensure notability, and to ensure that the people it mentions are indeed transsexual and not transgender (the latter belong in the article [[transgender]] or one of its related articles). -sche (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

More on above
Same link removed from this entry numerous times already. Site in question contains content lifted without permission from at least two other sites: The site has been spammed under multiple listings on Wikipedia. Many speculate the site owner is responsible for repeated attempts to reinsert the link here and elsewhere. The owner has had an unsatisfactory experience with plastic surgeon Douglas Ousterhout and has been publicizing this dissatisfaction in any venue available. Since the link appears under the Ousterhout entry and is not considered a primary trans web resource or a neutral point of view, it should not be listed under the general heading.
 * Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon
 * TG-friendly Therapists, compiled by Dr. Rebecca Allison

note: Jokestress 15:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * original comment was removed by 68.185.69.177 on 8 March and replaced that day.
 * comment removed by 68.185.69.177 again on 9 March and replaced that day.


 * TAKE A LOOK AT TRINITY'S SITE AND COMPARE WHAT THIS USER IS SAYING TO WHAT IS ON THE TRINITY SITE AND YOU SEE THAT Jokestress IS MAKING FALSE CLAIMS.
 * Jokestress Makes the claim that info has been lifted from * Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon
 * Compare the the link at **Trinity Site is question You will find the site uses frames, which would require you to dirctly right click on top of the Electrolysis and Laser link, then left click on open in a new link to see where it's linked to. Jokestress tries to use peoples lack of knowing how web pages work to make it seem like that site is stealing something when it's not doing any such thing.
 * Click on the link to the Electrolysis & Laser Treatments
 * Electrolysis and Laser **Electrolysis & Laser Treatments Area in question Notice the site links directly to Electrologists on the 'Net Who Treat Men, compiled by Rodney Brandon www.hairremovalpros.com being the site Jokestress claims is being lifted without permission. The site in questoin is linked to the same site Jokestress is claiming to be lifted by the Trinity site and this is the first example of slander by Jokestress
 * Now look at the other site Jokestress claims has had info lifted from it. TG-friendly Therapists, compiled by Dr. Rebecca Allison and compare the the links at **Trinity Site is question There are no TG-friendly Therapists listed on the site at all. Another example of slander by Jokestress
 * Slader after slander after slander.


 * I moved the above response by 68.185.69.177 below the earlier comment by me. Frames or not, the issue at hand was whether the site link should appear under this entry. Since several other Wikipedians had removed the link previously, I was following suit. Finally, the removal of comments on a talk page is considered vandalism. This is a place for discussion of conflicts, not for removing comments with which one disagrees. Jokestress 04:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Jokestress you lied about the site and the owner time and time again. I would not be surprised that people who removed the site are past patients of Douglas Ousterhout. I think you would want to up date you statement since accused **Trinity Site is question lifting items and it has not done what you claim. The site is linked on some of the major TG sites om the web by the owners of the site. So there are bound to be people who link it here and other places. If a site is linked on one major site on the web, it will bound to get links other places by the people who read the site and like it.


 * OK, let's take another look at more Trinity content lifted from another site as an example. Electrologists and Laser in CA is lifted almost verbatim from California Electrolysis Page on Karyn's Transsexual Refuge. Bottom line is that the Trinity site has padded out some areas to make it seem like a general resource site, but its primary goal is to complain about a surgeon Trinity does not like. Jokestress 15:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * As a semi-objective bystander here, I want to state that Jokestress's website is one of the most comprehensive and genuinely useful ones out there on the Web. She takes definite stances on some things, and is a very successful client of Ousterhout, but she errs on the side of cautious scrutiny and caveat emptor in all cases. She is extremely NPOV about everything she states on her website, and I am sure her edits here are, as well. I don't have caches of the website(s) in question, so I can't swear to the absolute accuracy of her points here, but I would bet a lot of money that she is in the right here. (Is this an appropriate place to make this point? I'm still kinda new to Wikipedia.) Jiawen 04:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As another bystander here I would like to revive the this about the Trinity site that was unjustly put down by Andrea JamesJokestress's www.tsroadmap.com

Andrea James Jokestress is was not NPOV when it comes to the subject of Trinity Rose or her sitewww.facialfeminizationsurgery.net The number one reason being that Andrea James Jokestress has been taking large contributions from Dr. Douglas Ousterhout for the past ten years in the name of the events Andrea James Jokestress has been presenting. Dr. Douglas Ousterhout been presented at the top of the guest list at the events she has organized because of the contributions to the event. Kind of hard to be NPOV about ike Trinity or her sitewww.facialfeminizationsurgery.net when you are accepting large amounts of money from Dr. Douglas Ousterhout. It would also be difficult to be NPOV Andrea James Jokestress's www.tsroadmap.com website promotes Dr. Douglas Ousterhout and you are selling videos promoting Dr. Douglas Ousterhout surgeries.

Another note I woud ike to touch on is when Andrea James Jokestress was trying to keep this Trinity’s off links section, Trinity’s site and Andrea’s were in direct competition in content and scope.

I think we should talk about this matter a great deal and get some facts out including some letters that have been made pubic about Dr. Mark Zukowski and Dr. Douglas Ousterhout fighting about Trinity case. The facts of the contents of the Dr. Douglas Ousterhout's letter to Dr. Mark Zukowski is to force him to get Dr. Anne Lawrence to remove Trinity's link from her website www.annelawrence.com/twr/index.html by way of treats. And for anyone that does not know this Andrea James Jokestress and Dr. Anne Lawrence have also been debating on number of subjects for many years now through the use of their websites and other media.

I think on the next response to this I will also provide get the link for the Dr. Douglas Ousterhout letter to Dr. Mark Zukowski.

There is a great dea of history when it comes to the matter of the Trinity Rose site and her ordeal with Dr. Douglas Ousterhout that people just don't know 23 Apr 2008

Image
Is there any specific reason the image at the top of the page isn't in the infobox? Raymond1922 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take the silence as a "no". I've moved it to the infobox; feel free to revert if there was a good reason for it not to be there. Raymond1922 (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reverted with an explanation. If you want a long discussion about this, I'm not interested. Just know that such an edit is unlikely to stand whether it's me reverting you or someone else reverting you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Should File:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG be included in the article?
File:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG is currently the first image the article displays, but there've been some back-and-forth attempts to remove (and readd) it lately. So, let's discuss. I don't have a firm opinion on whether it should stay or go. It is perhaps a bit odd to illustrate an article on a global topic with a picture of one individual person. OTOH, the image has, in some ways, become associated with the article (it semi-famously inspired Chelsea Manning's twitter handle). Should it stay where it is? Be moved further down? Be replaced by some other image? -sche (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a firm opinion either, other than some image should occupy that spot. However, I don't find it odd at all to illustrate an article with a single image or person illustrative of that topic. Dress is illustrated by one dress.  Folklore is illustrated by one painting at the top. Ditto Aircraft pilot, Soldier, Nurse, Kathoey, Drag queen, Transvestite, and so on. Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly the subject of the photograph self identifies as trans, so in that sense we will be hard pressed to find a better image. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Noting that it was an IP range, this one and this one, removing and edit warring over the image. Reasons given are in the IP's edit summaries. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with IdreamofJeanie I think it is a positive picture of a trans person (personally i would want a photo of a trans man too but my edit was once rejected). ~ BOD ~ TALK 14:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Anti-trans genetic screeners are having a field day with this photo! I squirm when I see the photo because of how Renée Richards was mistreated in the 1970s. The photo is unwittingly broadcasting a terrible message.--2601:C4:C080:81C:10A:8C39:401B:160B (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that the trans woman in the image does not meet passing standards, and you'd prefer we use an image of a trans women who passes? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * And/or you take issue with the XY written on her hand? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. My issue is the XY written on her hand. That's kind of like a woman holding up a sign that she has no uterus or a man holding up a sign that he's got no facial hair.--73.137.178.251 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When I first saw the image, I interpreted the XY aspect as her stating that she's proud to be transgender and she wants people to know that she's transgender and that she's proud that she is. I think it's easy for readers to come to that same conclusion. I can't see that anyone would think she's mocking/trolling transgender women. So what is the issue with showing such an image, in the lead or lower in the article? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have already made my point which has been fully grasped. Additionally, it would be better to place the photo in a lower section.--73.137.178.251 (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with including this image. Meters (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the photo is fine, and fine where it is. The message is not terrible at all -- looks like it is a expression of pride. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Androphilia and Gynephilia
There is nothing really wrong with this section, except that it is too long and detailed. I feel like it interrupts the article - especially the very attention-grabbing long block quotes - and gives too much weight on the back-and-forth of a now rather historical and outdated terminology debate. No one really uses words like 'homosexual transsexual' (the wrong way) anymore; is it necessary to bring it up and explain it at length, only to refute it?

The material will not be lost, as it copied from identical sections in the article androphilia and gynephilia. I will shorted the section, leaving this note for those surprised by what looks like the removal of perfectly good material. CyreJ (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

"Trangst" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Trangst. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. gnu 57 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Anatomy, Not Assignment
"inconsistent with their assigned sex" No. The whole POINT of transsexual is it's relation to sex. That means ANATOMY. Anatomy isn't something the doctor "made up" or "assigned". Anatomy is something nature "assigned", your chromosomes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnywhy (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Transsexual
The article doesn't really address or explain the fact that some transgender people find the term "transsexual" offensive. Needs a revamp I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.14.115 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead image
Just a note that in the case of File:TransgenreatParis2005.JPG, the fact that the subject is identified here as "a trans woman" is irrelevant. A Wikipedia image description is not a reliable source. This is a BLP issue, and outing is also a concern.

The image does not adequately illustrate the topic because the article is about the broader phenomenon of being transsexual, not about any one person or group of transsexual people.

in general, articles on large human populations shouldn't be illustrated with images of randomly selected individuals for reasons of due weight. The most recent RfC on this issue generalized the guideline to apply to "any broad grouping of humans", which surely includes transsexual people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The above is not how we do images here. It just isn't. Like stated here, WP:NPF does not apply. WP:NPF is not about images. It's not used for that. We use images of non-notable people all the time. What matters is MOS:PERTINENCE, which does not at all support removing that image. And, yes, it matters that the person is identified as a trans woman on the image description. The person is obviously not being outed. The WP:CONSENSUS I mentioned also matters. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES also does not support removing that image. And just last year, we revisited how far MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES extends: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 10. It's not about a single image of a single person (although I argued that if we do not use a montage or gallery, then I do not see how a single image is better and that the spirit of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES should extend to a single image showing one person or a group of people in a way that has not been manipulated by editing to put all those people in one image). This is not something I feel the need to debate. So I'll let others do that.


 * Pinging the editors from the previous discussion: -sche, Mathglot, IdreamofJeanie, Bodney, Meters, and ArglebargleIV. ArglebargleIV hasn't been back on Wikipedia since 2019. I will also contact Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, WP:BLP noticeboard, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images for commentary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I already suggested how PERTINENCE applies here: namely, "the article is about the broader phenomenon of being transsexual, not about any one person or group". How do we know the person is not being outed? The previous discussion on this talk page did not address the issues I mentioned, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override community consensus in any case.As hinted at above, the earlier MoS discussion features this comment: "The same issues that come with a composite image or similar apply to a single image of one person or a group of people, except worse [...] choosing just a few representatives from a group of people is insufficient for the reasons I copy/pasted above. All of those reasons apply to an even greater degree to attempts to represent groups of people with a single image." So I'm mystified as to why we would keep this image. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had some of the same concerns as Sangdeboeuf, but this news article about the photo confirms that the person pictured has publicly self-identified as transsexual. Photomontages and galleries that aim to reflect all the diversity of a given group are a bad idea. I am sympathetic to the view summarised in this article about using a photograph of a specific, arbitrarily chosen human couple to illustrate Human, rather than an artist's abstraction. (Something similar was done more recently with Man.) Cheers, gnu 57 17:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Basically from until the BuzzFeed story was published in June 2017, we had no independent RS confirmation of this person's identification as transsexual. If that doesn't highlight a problem with attaching photos of people to broader societal topics arbitrarily, I don't know what does.I didn't think about the image at the top of Human, although I had definitely seen it before. I wonder what the impact of recent discussions at WT:MOSIMAGES might be for that article, as well as Woman and Man. (I notice that Child does not currently have a lead image.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still going to leave this to others to debate since I've debated this topic enough, as seen by the above, linked MOS discussions. But I do wonder what you mean by "impact" when it comes to that discussion. As seen with that link, I took the matter there and absolutely no consensus formed with regard to extending MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to single images that aren't a montage/collage/composite. You can have the opinion that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does extend to that, but it's just an opinion and can't be enforced at this point in time. With the African Americans article, I had to rely on what watchers of that article and an RfC stated to keep a single image of a teacher and his students a single image of a man giving a tour to children out the article as the lead image; I couldn't use MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to keep the image out. What I did do was argue that "[t]he same issues that come with a composite image or similar apply to a single image of one person or a group of people, except worse" and that if, per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, we do not allow a montage/collage/composite in a case like that, it makes no sense that we would allow a single image to do the job.
 * Regarding "any broad grouping of humans"? If we went by that, then we wouldn't have images of firefighters in the Firefighter article. Then again, I guess that depends on if one considers firefighters to be a broad grouping of humans. Either way, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES clearly focuses on articles specifically about populations. A clarification was made about this. The closer of the 2016 MOS discussion -- S Marshall -- sought that clarification. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does not apply to things like people with haircuts, hair color, or pictures of people's body parts. For another body part clarification, there was this discussion on the Vulva talk page. S Marshall weighed in there.
 * As for this? Eh, then why argue that "The most recent RfC on this issue generalized the guideline to apply to 'any broad grouping of humans', which surely includes transsexual people."? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The opinion that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES extends to single images of people is the same opinion that you and others expressed in that discussion. Unless you have now changed your opinion, I don't see the problem. There was "absolutely no consensus" formed in the previous discussion here on including the photo either. The RfC close clearly refers to "any broad grouping of humans", so if you want to overturn that, you'll probably need a new RfC.I think most people will assume that the spirit of the guideline and RfC are about identities – that is, categorizations that reflect innate characteristics more than individual choices. Being a firefighter or having a certain haircut is not an identity in this way.This article is not about transsexual people as a group, but if it were, NOETHNICGALLERIES would certainly apply. In either case, there are established reasons, based on community consensus, for excluding the photo. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As for this? Eh, then why argue that "The most recent RfC on this issue generalized the guideline to apply to 'any broad grouping of humans', which surely includes transsexual people."? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The opinion that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES extends to single images of people is the same opinion that you and others expressed in that discussion. Unless you have now changed your opinion, I don't see the problem. There was "absolutely no consensus" formed in the previous discussion here on including the photo either. The RfC close clearly refers to "any broad grouping of humans", so if you want to overturn that, you'll probably need a new RfC.I think most people will assume that the spirit of the guideline and RfC are about identities – that is, categorizations that reflect innate characteristics more than individual choices. Being a firefighter or having a certain haircut is not an identity in this way.This article is not about transsexual people as a group, but if it were, NOETHNICGALLERIES would certainly apply. In either case, there are established reasons, based on community consensus, for excluding the photo. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There is this discussion that you keep pointing to like some consensus was formed there. The discussion clearly shows people disagreeing and that no consensus was formed. And the closer -- Newslinger -- of this related RfC on a lead image for the African Americans article reiterates what I just stated about there having been no consensus. Newslinger stated, "An editor linked to a discussion at . However, that discussion did not result in consensus for guideline changes, and does not affect this RfC. [...] While MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES advises against using 'a photomontage or gallery of images of group members, there is disagreement on whether an image that does not fall into this classification is appropriate as a lead image for this article. Editors who wish to propose a specific image for the lead image may do so in a separate RfC."


 * And that separate RfC? Here it is.


 * So I had to rely on two RfCs to keep the aforementioned image out. For the single image issue, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES only helped when it came to those agreeing with me.


 * And, yes, unlike that MOS discussion, consensus was indeed formed on the image you removed from this article. You can't go around using MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to remove an image like the one you removed when MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES states "a photomontage or gallery of images of group members" and nothing about a single image of a person and when the discussion I started about that did not result in any amendment to the guideline on that. That's the problem. You make it seem like I have an issue with the image being removed, when I was clear that I don't. The issue I have is with the rationales you have used to remove the image, especially WP:NPF and MOS:PERTINENCE. Your argument that "This article is not about transsexual people as a group" makes no more sense than saying that the Transgender article is not about transgender people as a group. And if not about a group, it's even odder that you are invoking MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I don't need to seek to overturn anything about "any broad grouping of humans." It's you who does not understand. If you want to keep debating this, feel free to debate Kolya Butternut below or take it to the MOS:IMAGES talk page (like I did last year). I see absolutely nothing else to state to you on this topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: My "feel free" comment was made before this edit that moved a comment. That is what "below" referred to. Before that move, my text was placed above that comment. And as long as the WP:Indentation is correct, the position of the comment is correct. In other words, either placement of that comment is correct. Except for noting that we should start new topics at the bottom of the page, there is nothing at WP:TALK suggesting that comments should or must be in chronological order. It is common for editors to place their comment ahead of others' if it makes sense to do so/is clear. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TALK, the point of putting new topics at the bottom of the page is to [make] it easy to see the chronological order of posts. IMO it's just common sense to apply the same rule to individual comments like . Interspersing a lengthy comment between two earlier ones seems to go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the guideline. In 6 years of participating in discussions on Wikipedia, I haven't seen non-chronological ordering of comments as a common practice. Would appreciate some examples if this is true. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we take this to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines? Then again, pinging MOS editor SMcCandlish, who has placed his comment ahead of others' times before, to weigh in on this is simpler. He might not want to comment, given how trivial this is. So you can look at WP:ANI and the WP:ANI archives for plenty of examples. Early on, one is seen in this section, where a "14:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)" post and a "15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)" post, each by different editors, are placed ahead of a "14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)" post by a different editor. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. Could it be that the editors replying behind the "14:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)" post would be less clear and might confuse? I think so. Or is this instance of jumping ahead supposed to be excused because of the bullet-point setup for the comments? I'm sure that there are also examples of non-chronological replies in the archives of this talk page. That you supposedly "haven't seen non-chronological ordering of comments as a common practice" until now is quite odd. It's not like I stated that it's the go-to thing that is done. Chronological order is still the standard, seeing as placing one's comment ahead of another's is usually not needed. But when a person wants to make it very clear who they are replying to, it happens and often without any issue. And it especially happens because so many editors (including experienced ones) do not follow everything that is seen at WP:Indentation. When someone uses poor indentation, another may need to format their post in a way they usually would not. Perhaps you wanted to make your case on this matter after this, this, this and this. But your movement of my comment in that case did not make the thread easier to read. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Fixed post, and then further tweak. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the goal is to make it very clear who [one is] replying to, then it's rather self-defeating to make it less clear who someone else is replying to, as did. Presumably this is why  felt the need to  back to its original location. Adjusting for someone else's poor indentation as with the  example is beside the point; Kolya Butternut's  reply to me was indented perfectly normally.Generally, a new comment with a lower level of indentation creates a new sub-thread, whether intended or not. The  and  comments in your example were later replies to an existing sub-thread. That's why they are above the earlier comment. The point is not that all comments should be ordered chronologically, but that replies to a given comment (as indicated by indentation level) should be ordered chronologically, to preserve the flow of the discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your analysis. I disagree with your idea of "less clear" in this case. Obviously. What do you intend to get out of this latest "discussion" the two of us are having? If we took this to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, your arguments would stand no chance, just like your MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES argument stands no chance with the way that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is currently written. Your odd interpretations of our policies and guidelines are tiring. There was no need to ping Kolya Butternut. And Kolya Butternut posted a comment ahead of one of my comments elsewhere, and I put that comment back in its "correct" spot. Just like here on this talk page, Kolya Butternut wanted their comment where they placed it, I wanted mine where I placed it elsewhere. And it's in chronological order there. Whether or not it's clearer in chronological order is obviously subject to disagreement. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's to avoid any such disagreements about the most "clear" placement of replies that they are normally ordered chronologically, when replying to the same comment at the same level of indentation like I said. We shouldn't make readers jump around a talk page trying to follow the natural flow of discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, if that was what you were hoping to get out of this "discussion", you would have taken the matter to the appropriate venue. That "We shouldn't make readers jump around a talk page trying to follow the natural flow of discussion." was exactly my point when reverting you here. It is my point above. But feel free to debate with yourself. No more wasting my time on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The concerns raised here are something that should be put into some kind of RfC at WT:MOSIMAGES. Single images are not galleries, and gender identities are not ethnicities (or anything similar, as address in a later RfC).  So, that's maybe two separate clarification RfCs, if it comes to it.  While (per WP:NOT, WP:WIKILAWYER, etc.) we do tend to apply WP:P&G matters in a broadly-enough construed manner to match the actual community intent of their enactment (even if they have phrasing glitches), this is going far beyond that, in two tangential directions. If galleries of images, in general, were a terrible idea, MoS would say so. But it is also possible that the concerns that lead to NOETHNICGALLERIES might also lead to similar conclusions about certain other topics. It doesn't seem credible to me, though, that MoS or any policy would ban images of TG/NB/GQ people, identified as such, outside their own bios. If there's a potential BLP issue with a particular image (e.g. we don't have proof of the subject's self-identification), then use a different image. That's a this-case problem not an across-all-cases issue. And per WP:ABOUTSELF, a self-published source is in fact a reliable source for that self's own declared gender ID (though I do not know the exact background details of the particular image people are venting back and forth about).  I have no opinion on the aesthetic merits of that picture. It seems dubious that images of random, non-notable TG/NB/GQ people are of encyclopedic use in articles on gender issues as broad topics (e.g., a Wikimedian's own self-portrait and self-ID on Commons as trans is probably permissible, but it may not be very useful in a Wikipedia article like this one). However, images of very prominent people who self-identify by such a categorizing term are probably good illustration fodder, judging by what we do at other topics (that aren't hitting various editors' raw nerve ends).  How/where to include them is an open question, and need not be a one-size-fits-all rule.


 * I agree with SMcCandlish on almost all points here, particularly that NOETHNICGALLERIES does not apply to a single picture. Even taking into account that it explicitly scopes itself to not just ethnic groups but also "similarly large human populations", a single image is still not a gallery. If there were problems with this specific image, e.g. doubts about whether the person was trans, that could be grounds for replacing it, but it appears from the discussion above that there is external reliable sourcing that the person pictured is trans, so AFAICT the image is fine. I don't feel strongly about whether the image should be the lead image or be moved lower down with e.g. a trans flag or symbol (or something else) as the lead image, but I will note that this particular image achieved some minor degree of notability; its presence in our article inspired Chelsea Manning's twitter handle and thence the film XY Chelsea, a thing covered by some RS. -sche (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good "regardless of the outcome of the discussion about generalities, this is a special case" argument. I had seen that image (before, off-site), but didn't realize it was quite that notable/prominent/influential.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Events and orgs section
The #Events and organizations section is problematic, and needs attention; possibly it just needs to be removed. It was created in 2013 by who had a lot of problems with sourcing throughout their tenure here, and eventually faded. The section reads like a laundry list of organizations, randomly chosen (or perhaps not randomly?) with no connecting narrative, or how they came about or how this section relates to the larger topic. They are almost all USA-based. Also, orgs and events belong more properly in one of the transgender articles, and if mentioned here at all should only contain a brief summary. Most of the citations are simply the website home page of the org in question, so of questionable reliability; if kept, they would need independent sourcing. Personally, I would delete this section, unless one could find some orgs or events that were specifically related to transsexualism; I think I've seen some support groups that are active with respect to proper treatment from medical authorities, things like gateway issues, attitudes towards pre-op vs non-op, and so on; something like that might be appropriate here. Everything else really doesn't belong, imho, and could possibly be moved to List of transgender-rights organizations. If someone blanks the section, you won't hear any objection from me. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No improvement after a week on multiply-tagged section. Boldly removing this section. If you wish to restore individual orgs or events, please explain here or in the edit summary why they belong here, and provide independent sourcing. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)